puddlegum:
I think you’re right about the lazy aspect of the press. But I had to laugh about what you said re: McCain. Maybe he used his stereotype to his advantage because it was a favorable stereotype. Not many candidates get that option. And then there was Dan Quayle…
I think that as Dean goes on people are going to be catching him in more contradictions than he can explain his way out of. The Burlington Free Press (a Vermont paper) ran two stories back-to-back that contradicted each other. It was right after Sadam had been captured and one had him saying that if he were the President Sadam wouldn’t have been in custody at all and the other saying that he thinks that Sadam should be put to the death penalty.
Huh? 
Despite being a consevative I would like to see a change. If a Dem gets the nod that will represent my ideas, then I’ll vote for him. Problem being that I don’t know what the hell Dean is saying to garner support and what he is saying because he means it. He’s going to have to toe a line at some point.
That first one hasn’t made the national spotlight at all, as you’d certainly expect. Got a link?
Well, it was McCain himself who billed himself as a straight talker. Whether or not he was is another issue, but John Mace is right: “straight talker” isn’t exactly a negative stereotype. However, some might recall the media in 1999 hanging another label on Senator McCain: “angry.”
Is “angry” the new code for “straight talker”? If so, then I definitely want an angry president.
It seems to be code for “occasionally shows frustration at an inane question or statement”. And I agree that either interpretation is something you want in a President.
Dean is certainly being “Gored” but he’d better get used to it. “The Media” will seem like a fan club once the campaign starts.
The Center for Media Public Affairs says that the networks are treating Dean quite differently: about 49% of stories about him are positive, versus 78% for his rivals in total. You do treat the front-runner differently in an election or primary race, so I can’t say if that’s unusual compared to past races. (I’m also very skeptical of people who ‘analyze the media’ by counting quotes and references, but there you go.)
I’ve always heard this, too, and I’d certainly say it’s applied in the past. However, if this is a constant, then why is George W. Bush still being treated so very nicely by the media? He’s definitely the front runner in this race, according to most polls. A lot can change in the next ten months, sure, but right now, it’s safe to say Bush is leading. It’s a weak lead, I believe, but it’s a lead all the same. So where’s the scrutiny of Bush? Bill Clinton got plenty of scrutiny in 1996, and Bush Senior got plenty of scrutiny in 1992. Why is this incumbent different?
Here’s another quote:
On the Soviet Union issue, how fit does that make Howard Dean for the post of potus?
Alan, do you think that Dean truly believes that there is still a Soviet Union? If he does, then I’d agree he’s too stupid to be POTUS. But my guess is that this is a simple speaking error, and he did manage to notice the fall of the Soviet Union.
Do you believe that Bush really knew the leader he was quizzed about, but simply made some kind of speaking error?
Follow the money.
(and I guess I’m tangentially replying to Alan’s defense of it as well)
nitpick: Well the reporter stumped him on the name of the leader of Pakistan, who had just come to power in a military coup within the last 2 months(of the question). This, plus it’s nuclear status and how early in his admin that Pakistan became important, makes me hard pressed to call it “trivia”. It doesn’t matter how many other people could have named him, they’re not trying out for the job. But hey, why study when you can surround yourself with smart tutors.
Well, to sum up how I feel about this issue of what Bush knows and doesn’t know (and this quote has been attributed to multiple people so I won’t try to give attribution):
It’s not what he doesn’t know that worries me; It’s what he does know that just ain’t so.
The Public Editor of The New York Times responds to criticisms from Dean supporters about coverage.
An interesting read. He found a few examples, but nothing overwhelmingly biased, in their coverage.
I think that the stereotype of McCain was inaccurate but not negative. The genius of the McCain campaign was to understand the media was going to stereotype him and then to help craft that stereotype so as to use it to his advantage. Any candidate who thinks that the press is going to portray serious policy issues or nuanced, fair depictions of a candidate is going to be dissapointed. Edwards is the only candidate who seems to understand this so far this time. He has helped craft his stereotype - optimistic moderate and so far it has served him very well.
After last night’s performance, does anybody still believe that “Angry Dean” is a media creation? It looks like good and honest reporting now.